Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that - no note on aggregation semantics, how the metric set is chosen, or default date scope - so it earns only the baseline.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the resource and stays short (two sentences plus an example), which is good. But the dense run-on list mixes dimensions with metrics and the 'Example' payload is not clearly labeled as showing input syntax, so the structure is compact yet ambiguous.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the input side is incomplete: six of nine parameters are undocumented in anyone's schema or the description, and it is unclear what controls which metrics are returned. For a 9-parameter aggregation tool this leaves real gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 22%, so the description must carry the load, but it only illustrates formacion/fecha_desde/agrupar_por via the example. It leaves cuenca, empresa, area_concesion, subtipo_reservorio, fecha_hasta and max_rows unexplained, and the metrics it enumerates (wells, stages, lateral length, proppant, water) are not parameters at all, which risks misleading an agent about what it can filter on.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific resource (fracture jobs/completions) and lists the dimensions it can be grouped by, so the general intent is inferrable. However it conflates output metrics (wells, stages, proppant, water) with filterable dimensions, so an agent cannot cleanly tell what is returned vs. filtered, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like query_production or query_wells.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance and never names an alternative among the many query_* siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or how it differs from query_production/query_reserves/query_wells, which all sound similarly domain-adjacent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.